Lionel
M. Kaufman, Jr., Ph.D., has taught English at the Humacao campus of the University
of Puerto Rico since 1975. He received his Ph.D. degree in Teaching English
as a Second Language from New York University. From 1990 to 1992 he was a
senior Fulbright lecturer in Ankara, Turkey. He has also served as President
of Puerto Rico TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages).

Introduction

Turning
the test-taker into a test-maker can transform the process into an imaginative,
exciting game involving both student and teacher. Each tries to outguess the
other's visions of the course, their "hidden agendas"! In this "game," you're
trying to "psych out" the teacher and your classmates in writing your own
test items while they're writing theirs. You're asking yourself: "Should I
make it easy or difficult?" "What kind of questions will the teacher ask?"
"What are my classmates thinking and writing?" Later, in the test correction
stage, you're reinforcing your own knowledge while tutoring your peers.

Initially,
students are thinking and scheming; later they are helping themselves by helping
their classmates, building up confidence in themselves while mutually sharing
areas of expertise with their peers. Thinking, scheming, psyching out others,
helping out their peers--these are all products of an active, creative imagination
used in the process of learning and assessing progress in a second language.

Here
learning and assessment go hand in hand. There is no clear cut distinction
between teaching and testing or between teacher and student since the test-taker
also functions as a self-monitor and peer instructor. This kind of learner-centered,
cooperative learning/testing activity involves imagination in the true sense
of the word because it frees students from the tyranny of being accountable
exclusively to the teacher's "hidden agenda" while it empowers them to be
guided by their own perceptions of knowledge as well as those of other learners.
This technique has elicited the following comments from students:

"I liked it because you knew what was coming in the exam."
"Things I couldn't understand well, my classmates could help me with."
"There is an exchange of knowledge and opinions, and a lot of our doubts are
cleared up."

The
small-group, task-based activities required them to make up lesson plans,
teach their classmates, write up questions and exercises, write up tests,
and yes, even take the tests themselves! Two very different groups of students
participated: (1) intermediate-level ESL students, and (2) ESL teacher trainees
(subsequently identified as "bilinguals") taking more advanced English language
classes.

Hidden Agendas

Is it
absurd to think that students can teach and test each other as well as themselves?
Maybe not. Advocates of student-centered classes say students come to the
test with preconceived ideas about what they consider important to study,
a mental set that Nunan and Breen (1989) call the students' "hidden agenda."
They point out that there is often a discrepancy between what is planned,
what is taught, and what is learned. That is, students study what they think
is important, which often differs from what the teacher had in mind.

In addition,
the second language literature has encouraged teachers to become sensitive
to the contributions that learners can make to curriculum design. By making
their own input in the class, learners become more involved and become what
some have termed "stakeholders" in the educational process. So why not extend
this to the test itself? Getting students involved in materials writing, including
test writing, helps them to "internalize the material through their own creative
involvement" while they assume the role of "collaborator" instead of merely
"language receiver" Clark, 1989:136).

Numerous
studies of student-centered approaches to testing have appeared recently in
the second language literature. In some experiments, students and teachers
cooperatively plan and write formative or summative tests (Smith, 1990; Papadaki,
1991; Murphy, 1991). Another approach, used by Mejia & Ortiz (1993), is to
get feedback from students on specific test items after taking a teacher-made
test. In the present study, however, student input is present at numerous
stages in the teaching and testing sequence. In addition, the strategies are
implemented in classes at two different proficiency levels. It is felt that
materials writing activities are especially valuable for second language students
since in writing their own exercises and tests, students engage in a meaningful
problem-solving task which they must carry out by negotiating meaning in the
target language. On the other hand, teacher trainees, who are more proficient
in English, would also profit from materials writing since it prepares them
for similar tasks they will face in the classroom.

Gauging Attitudes

The
experiment, which gauged the attitudes of the two groups of students to materials
preparation, used a sequence of five steps: Lesson Preparation, Test Preparation,
Lesson Presentation, Test Administration, and Peer Tutoring. In the Lesson
Preparation stage, students working in groups of three or four are given instructions
to prepare a lesson on one part of their textbook unit to present orally to
the class. In some cases, depending on the nature of the class, teaching the
lesson also means conducting practice or drill on specific skills. In the
case of a grammar lesson, for instance, ESL students assuming the role of
teacher either use the grammar exercises from the textbook to practice with
the class or prepare their own materials. In the classes of teacher trainees,
lesson preparation involved directing a discussion on an assigned reading
in a journal or one from a unit in their textbook.

Preparation and Administration

In
the Lesson Preparation phase, student groups present their lessons to the
class. Group members are expected to participate equally in the presentation
and are evaluated individually on their oral performance. At the same time,
the students listening to the group presentations are encouraged to take notes
since they know they will be tested on the material in the near future. After
preparing the lesson, students write quiz or test items to assess their classmates'
comprehension of the material. During this activity, the teacher initially
gives orientation on strategies for writing test items and sets guidelines
on types of items to be used. Then, while students are writing their items
in their group, the teacher circulates around the classroom giving feedback.
Both student-made and teacher-made test items are incorporated into either
short quizzes for checking comprehension of the material or used in unit exams.
In general, in any quiz or unit exam, the ratio of teacher-made to student-made
items is 50-50. Thus, all students are aware that the test will include both
items that they and their classmates have written as well as teacher-made
ones.

Peer Tutoring

When
the corrected and graded quizzes or tests are returned, the students are given
a correction task. They must correct their mistakes or weak areas on the test,
and, in some cases, supply a rule explanation or an expansion of an idea.
For example, in a grammar item, the student corrects the error and supplies
the rule. However, in a discussion or essay item, "corrections" may involve
writing a short paragraph to clarify or expand on an idea. These corrections
are done with the added incentive that additional points will be added to
their test grade. However, before beginning the correction task, students
are to seek help or advice from their classmates who prepared these items.
Thus, each student is both "test writer" as well as "test taker." As test
writer he or she is an "expert" on some portion of the test and is in the
position to help or advise classmates in the correction task. As "test taker"
the student seeks advice from other "experts".

This
activity requires considerable independence of movement, as students move
around the classroom seeking and giving advice. Meanwhile, for the ESL group,
purposeful negotiation of meaning is taking place in the target language (although
students who share a common L1 may use it to explain grammatical rules).

Reactions

These
activities, which took place at the University of Puerto Rico, Humacao campus,
were repeated throughout the semester in both groups. The ESL group was composed
of first year students taking a required course in Basic English. The ESL
teacher trainees, mostly proficient English-Spanish bilinguals, were taking
courses in language acquisition and English-Spanish contrastive analysis which
are offered in a program leading to a B.A. degree in Teaching English as a
Second Language. At the end of the semester both groups were asked to fill
out an open-ended attitude questionnaire which asked for reactions to the
following tasks: working in groups; writing their own materials, including
tests; taking combined teacher-made and student-made tests; and correcting
their tests by consulting their peers.

Motivation

Although
both groups of students were positive toward these learner-centered strategies,
the ESL students appeared to be more enthusiastic when asked if they learned
more using this approach. The ESL students pointed to the benefits of sharing
knowledge with their classmates. One student said, "I learned a lot because
in this way we know what our classmates are thinking. It was beneficial since
we were able to exchange ideas and having to explain these ideas to others
resulted in having clearer and more understandable ideas." While many of the
bilinguals felt similarly, many others from this group pointed to the need
for more teacher input. One teacher trainee commented,"I learned what the
other students taught, but at times it is necessary for the professor to explain
more."

Next,
when the two groups were asked to express a preference for either small group
work or learning through a teacher-directed class, the ESL students were overwhelmingly
in favor of group work while the bilinguals appeared divided on this issue.
One comment by an ESL student was:

"Through the group we get more motivated, we put more effort
into our work, and our mind is open because we do the work ourselves."

The
bilingual students, on the other hand, either preferred a teacher-directed
class or alternating between the two approaches. Said one:

"I don't believe it is good to completely depend on a mentor. The strategy
of working in groups should complement but not substitute the work of the
teacher."

Test-Writing Popular among Students

As for
writing their own tests, both groups found the experience beneficial. Most
teacher trainees remarked that writing test items helped them to comprehend
the material better. "It was beneficial," said one bilingual, "because it
helped us not just to memorize facts but to really understand the material."
This comment was echoed by many ESL students, but, in addition, many of them
pointed out the advantage of having a clearer idea of what was expected of
them. Said one:

"I liked it because you knew more or less what was coming
in the exam," adding "many times professors put items in the exam that students
don't understand."

Another
second language student said the use of this strategy showed that the teacher
recognized that students can make valuable input to the class. She put it
this way,

"I thought it was a good idea because the teacher was
taking us into account and is recognizing that we can also express our own
ideas."

One
of the most interesting findings of this study related to the validity of
the tests themselves. Some of the questions that were running through this
researcher's mind were the following: How valid are test items which the students
write and then give to their classmates or take themselves? Would the students
merely give away the answers to items they were writing to their classmates
in the other groups? However, in the final analysis, this didn't seem to be
a serious problem with either class. In fact, when asked if the test-writing
activity was beneficial, the only negative reaction came from a student who
in complete honesty replied, "Not as effective as it could have been because
the groups did not share their items with other groups because of lack of
time." Another student's comment reinforced my feeling that perhaps the strategy
of knowing only some of the items in the test had a kind of "tease effect";
that is, it was an incentive to study for the items you didn't know. When
asked if she liked test-writing, this student responded: "I loved it! When
I prepared my exams I always made very difficult items. But my group mates
wanted to make them easier. I didn't want them easy because we never knew
how difficult the teacher's exam was going to be. I felt it was better to
prepare yourself to the maximum so that you won't regret it later on."

Students Positive to Peer Correction

The
last question referred to the "peer correction" stage where students were
asked to correct their exams after consulting classmates who wrote the items.
The question was: "When you corrected your exams, did your classmates help
you to understand your errors?" Here again both groups were positive to this
approach with the only dissension coming from a few bilingual students with
mixed feelings about the procedure. An ESL student wrote:

"Now that we see that we can learn by asking our friends,
we don't have to depend so much on the professor."

A bilingual student, however, felt that giving and seeking advice
at the same time was too demanding:

"My classmates helped me. But I didn't want to bother them
too much because they also had difficulties and had to ask for help from other
groups."

The
commentaries from the two groups--bilingual and second language learners--would
seem to indicate that the appropriateness of these activities depends on the
task at hand and the proficiency level of the student. The bilingual students
seemed to favor more teacher input, especially at the lesson preparation stage,
while the second language students liked group work because it gave them the
opportunity to participate more in the class in a non-threatening way and
helped to vary the class routine. Both groups, however, were positive to the
idea of test writing, but for different reasons. The bilinguals thought it
helped them to understand the material more thoroughly, while the second language
students liked it because it gave them the opportunity to know in advance
what was coming on the test.

Student-centered
learning is not for everyone. As this study demonstrates, the success of this
approach depends on the nature of the class, the proficiency level of the
student, and the specific task the student is undertaking. But there may be
other variables as well-- for example, the student's individual learning style
or the teacher's own teaching style. Finally, the cultural background of students
may be important to the extent that it influences how the students view their
own roles in relation to the teacher (Kaufman, 1993; McCargar, 1993). However,
for these students in Puerto Rico having them teach and test themselves is
one way of narrowing the gap between two "hidden" agendas--those of the teacher
and the student.

Papadaki, Georgia. 1991. "The Student-Constructed Test: An
Alternative to Teacher-Constructed Tests." Paper presented at the 10th
International Conference of the Greek Applied. Linguistics Association,Thessaloniki,
Greece.

Smith, K. 1990. "Let Your Students Write Their Own Tests."
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association of
Teachers of English as a Foreign Language, Dublin, Ireland. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, ED 322 572).